Who’s Afraid of Senator Byrd? The Constitution and the Uses of American History
Stanley N. Katz Woodrow Wilson School Constitution Day Lecture Princeton University 17 September 2007
A half-page ad in the New York Times Book Review a few weeks ago announced
that the Annenberg Foundation Trust’s Annenberg Classroom could help to make
Constitution Day, September 17, “easy:” Constitution Day “shaped our HISTORY, it
charts our Future.” i The Foundation asserted that “The U.S. Constitution protects the
wellbeing of our country and ensures our freedoms. Yet many Americans know little
about it. That’s why Congress established Constitution Day – a time to teach future
generations about the foundations of our democracy.”ii
I wonder how many of you have wondered why you are sitting in Dodds
Auditorium on a lovely September afternoon, when you could otherwise be walking
along the towpath or at least heading for Firestone? Many years ago when I was finishing my dissertation, a grad school friend was summoned to a job interview at
UCLA, and to the astonishment of the History Dept. committee preparing to interrogate
him, he spoke first at the meeting, asking “You gentlemen must have wondered why I
have brought you together today?” Despite his chutzpah, he got the job. But the answer to the analogous question today is “Senator Byrd.” We would not be here today if the distinguished Senator (D, W.Va.) had not had the chutzpah to write into law on
December 10, 2003 the requirement that any and all educational institutions that receive federal monies must offer their students an instructional program on the U.S. Constitution 2 each September 17th. Who’s afraid of Senator Byrd? Well, I am not, but here you are being educated by me about the U.S. Constitution – though perhaps not exactly as the good Senator would have wished.
I confess that the first thought that crossed my mind when I read reports of the legislation was that the federal government had no right to determine the curriculum of
Princeton University (or any other institution of higher education). But on reflection I have concluded that we while we should go to the barricades in the name of academic freedom if the feds were to mandate a requirement that every undergraduate take a course in constitutional law or history, requiring us to hold a once-a-year educational experience of our own choosing seems sufficiently permissive and respectful of institutional educational prerogatives. And in any case the constitutional status of academic freedom is not so clear.
For example, as part of its get-tough-on-Cuba policy, the Bush administration recently issued regulations restricting the travel of U.S. undergraduate students to Cuba for short courses (of the sort that Princeton in Cuba used to provide). The regulations were challenged in the name of First Amendment based academic freedom. Last July 30
Judge Huvelle of the federal District Court in the District of Columbia upheld the regulations on the grounds that what she referred to as “the so-called academic freedom doctrine” applies only to government regulations that control the content of academic speech – and travel restrictions are a different matter.iii
More importantly, of course, the federal government has been in the higher education business at least since the passage of the Northwest Ordinance setting aside public lands for the support of public education in 1787 and the Morrill Act that 3
established our magnificent land grant college system in 1862.iv Following in the
Jeffersonian republican tradition, mid-nineteenth century Republicans agreed with one of
their House members from Illinois, who asked during the Morrill Bill debate: “What is
the true, genuine spirit of our institutions: Upon what are they founded? The two great
pillars of our American Republic, upon which it rests, are universal liberty and universal
education.”v These days we think of the federal government’s role in higher education as
primarily the provider of student financial aid and the funding of scientific research, but
from the start many Americans have accepted the conceptual link between education and
democratic citizenship. Senator Byrd is on safe ground in this respect.
I want to suggest to you this afternoon that while the constitutional basis for the
Byrd legislation is somewhat problematic, that is not nearly so troubling as what the
legislation implies both about how we think about the U.S. Constitution and how we
think about the role of history teaching in undergraduate education. That is, I am less
concerned about the role of the federal government in mandating teaching requirements
in higher education, than I am about it mandating the manner of teaching of U.S. history
in particular. Therein hangs a very interesting and consequential tale, which begins with
a discussion of the written Constitution, and ends with my own suggestion for the best
use of Constitution Day.
Of course Senator Byrd is not alone in his veneration for the Constitution, which
he famously and invariably carries with him at all times – as do I. [Flourish Constitution]
When beginning to write this lecture, I was struck by a passage in a September 1 New
York Times article about Condoleezza Rice’s concern for her historical legacy. She told the reporter that she had recently visited the National Archives for the first time (about 4
time, I should think), and spent a morning viewing the Emancipation Proclamation, the
Declaration of Independence and (her rank ordering is interesting, friends) the
Constitution. vi These documents, she told the Times, gave her a new perspective:
“People are still trying to resolve those legacies . . . [so] I’m not going to worry about my
legacy.”vii These are wise words. Secretary Rice seems suggest that the meaning of historic documents is not immediately self-evident, a point that seems to have escaped the
Annenberg Foundation, Senator Byrd, and others I shall soon mention.
This is not a matter of politics. Many, perhaps most, commentators on public
affairs have grand and fixed notions of our Founding documents, but they attach very
different significances to these documents and to the Founding Era, some seeming to tie
themselves to the past, others using them for present purposes. The very able Dean of
this School has recently published a book entitled The Idea that is America, in which she
makes a point about the relationship between American ideas and historical context:
The American idea took shape at our nation’s founding as a vision and a promise. The Founders foresaw a nation that could be different from any other. They wrote this vision into the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights [a different trio than Condi Rice’s, notice]. But in themselves . . .these documents are only words on paper, however venerable the parchment and flourishing the signatures. The idea that is America maybe written in words, but it is realized in our deeds.viii
Constitutional law scholars will recognize in this formulation the distinction between
“originalists” and advocates of a “living Constitution,” but for the moment I simply want
to remind you of the distinction between historical documents and present political
realities. The question is how we are connected to our constitutional past? What claims,
if any, does it have on us as citizens?
5
Americans have been declaiming on the subject for centuries, perhaps stimulated
by what Benjamin Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on
September 17, 1787, the day on which the Framers actually signed the Constitution of the
United States – and now the secret is out as to why we are here on this particular date.
Franklin, the new country’s elder statesman, wrote out remarks for James Wilson to read
to the Framers two hundred and twenty years ago today. It is a wonderful speech, in
which Franklin began by saying that “there are several parts of this constitution which I
do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them,”ix words which
tell us something important about the multiple ways in which the Framers thought about
the document they had produced. He went on to say that he agreed to the Constitution
“with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for
us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well
administered . . . I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to
make a better Constitution. . . . It therefore astonishes me . . . to find this system
approaching so near to perfection as it does . . .”x “Near to perfection” is perhaps the conception we need to hold on to on Constitution Day. “Thus,” Franklin proceeded, “I consent . . . to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.”xi Many of you will remember that after the Framers filed by the front
of the Hall to sign the parchment, Madison reported that Franklin “looking towards the
Presidents Chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a
few members near him, that Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a
rising from a setting sun.”xii Franklin noted that he had often wondered whether the sun
on this chair was rising or falling, “But now,” he said, “at length I have the happiness to 6
know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.”xiii What a happy story for Constitution
Day. But of course Franklin could only be sure that the sun was rising in September,
1787. What do you suppose he would say about the sun’s inclination today?
But of course neither Ben Franklin nor George Washington ever suggested that
we celebrate September 17 as a holiday in honor of the constitution. So far as I can tell, the events that led us to the designation of a Constitution Day began with the
Congressional designation of another date, the third Sunday in May, as “Citizenship Day
and New Citizens Day” in 1940, on the eve of the war.xiv
On this special day of recognition, observance, and commemoration of American citizenship, both the newly naturalized citizen and the youth attaining the age of 21 are to be recognized. The precise nature of the program is left to each local community.xv
The INS was given the responsibility for coordinating with local communities and
providing suggestions for developing ceremonies.xvi In 1944 Judge Learned Hand gave
the Day’s ceremonial talk, and linked its observance to the Constitution, albeit
negatively: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no
constitution, no law, and no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even
do much to help it ...”xvii But for Hand this was not just the work of man: “the spirit of
liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson
it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten, that there may be a kingdom where the
least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.”xviii There matters
rested until 1952, when Congress designated September 17 as Citizenship Day, and in
1956 proclaimed the week beginning September 17th as Constitution Week.xix
7
The Byrd amendment actually changed the name “Constitution Day” to
“Constitution Day and Citizenship Day.”xx Since then, as I have already told you,
educational institutions receiving federal funds are obligated by federal law, not simply
encouraged, to celebrate the Day formally. The annual Constitution Day proclamations
of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush indicate the range of available meanings of
the observance. In 1995 Clinton referred to the Constitution as “the greatest expression
of our national identity.”xxi He noted that
From the beginning, there was a dissonance between the plain meaning of our creed and the reality of American life, and constitutional history reflects the vital changes wrought by amendments, civil war and tremendous social transformations. Emancipation, women’s suffrage, civil rights, voting rights – all these began as struggles of citizens who joined together to push our Nation toward the ideals enshrined in our Constitution, and whose efforts were encouraged by the Constitution itself.xxii
But when Bush proclaimed this week on August 22, he said that “we celebrate the
anniversary of our Nation’s Constitution and honor the Framers who created the
landmark document that continues to guide our Nation.”xxiii
Today, every American shares in this legacy of liberty, and we are grateful for the courage, conviction and sacrifice of all those who have helped preserve and uphold the principles of a free society. As we remember the enduring importance of the Constitution, we also recognize our responsibility as citizens to respect and defend the values of our founding and participate in the unfolding story of freedom.xxiv
I don’t want to read too much into words written by those Executive Office
functionaries who also write the proclamations honoring National Pickle Eaters Day, but presumably they are trying to reflect the views of their bosses. Put simply, Bill Clinton saw the Constitution as an originally flawed document, the product of change produced
by more than two centuries of political struggle, and George Bush sees it as the 8
embodiment of enduring values and the key to understanding American history. My argument is that it is this view that Senator Byrd and others are promoting in designating
today as Constitution Day and in seeking to reform the teaching of American history
accordingly. I find this troubling and my task today is to explain why.
Let’s start by looking at Senator Byrd’s rationale for the Constitution Day
requirement. He gave the obligatory address himself at Sheperd University in West
Virginia on Sept. 16, 2005, the first observance in his home state. “Not a day has passed
in the history of this great republic in which the Constitution has not been important,” he
assured the audience, “[a]nd certainly not today, as religiously inspired terrorist groups strike from wild dark places at the way of life that our Constitution guarantees for us.” xxv
This is heady stuff. Is it a “way of life” that the Constitution “guarantees” us? Let’s forget for the moment the “wild, dark places,” or, for that matter, “the children of light and the children of darkness.” “The anniversary of the signing of the Constitution is,” he went on:
a very important day, yet it is often not even printed on the calendar and is only rarely observed. That is a shame. Why should the phases of the moon, or the first day of Autumn, or Halloween, be granted more notice in the passing days of our lives than an event which has such impact on so many aspects of our daily occupations?... xxvi
Moreover,
This deceptively simple document fundamentally affects how we live in the United States. Most issues of concern on a national scale involve it: war, treaties, international and interstate commerce, the role of the federal and state governments in the event of national catastrophes, discrimination, civil rights, taxes – the list goes on and on. It is written in simple English, not legalistic gobbledygook. There is no reason why all Americans cannot read it and see how it applies to events going on around them.xxvii
9
Now, it is nice to know that the Constitution is not “legalistic gobbledygook,” though not all of us find its language so transparent as Byrd does, but what counts for him is that an eighteenth century formulation is a sure guide to understanding twenty-first century events. In his 2006 Constitution Day message Senator Byrd reminded us that he carries a copy of the document with him “wherever I go,” and asked “but what about you? What do you know about the Constitution? How much of it do you carry around with you? Why should you want to know about your Constitution?”xxviii His answer was to refer to Ben Franklin, who reminded the Framers that they had created a “Republic, if you can keep it.”xxix And adhering to the structures and values of the Constitution, he argued, is the way to preserve the republic.
Our Constitution embodies the vision of the Framers, their dream of freedom, supported by the genius of practical structure which has come to be known as the checks and balances and separation of powers. But we cannot defend and protect this dream if we are ignorant of the Constitution’s history and how it works. Ignorance is ultimately the worst enemy of a people who want to be free.xxx
Education is then, for Byrd, the key to the preservation of the republic, historical training is the key to education, and understanding of the Founding Era is the key to United States history.
My concern with what Byrd has done (and is doing) is with the political and ideological spin that is put upon the Constitution on its Day. I believe that the most serious problem is the sanctification and glorification of the Constitution qua constitution, that is, with the veneration of a parchment signed in 1787 -- in and of itself.
This is what our former colleague Walter Murphy, the immediate past McCormick
Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, called constitutionism 10
The awkward neologism “constitutionism” refers to adherence to the terms of the constitutional text . . .. Constitutionalism differs [in that] [i]t does not merely connote a nation’s having a constitutional text but to its having a particular kind of constitutional order. Constitutionalism [on the other hand] is a normative political theory that contends that all exercises of governmental power, whether representing the will of one person, an elite, or an overwhelming majority of citizens, is subject to important substantive limitations.xxxi
It has, alas, been all too common in our history for those who want to lock in old
constitutional values and interpretations to promote constitutionism.
The most egregious recent example of this phenomenon was then Chief Justice
Warren Burger’s management of the Bicentennial of the Constitution in 1987. (He was the Chair of the Bicentennial Commission). Twenty years ago today the New York Times
reported that, “President Reagan is scheduled to speak outside Independence Hall. And at
4 P.M., the moment of the Constitution's signing, former Chief Justice Warren Burger is
to ring a reproduction of the Liberty Bell, signaling other bells to chime around the
country and at United States installations around the world.” xxxii When the bells stopped
ringing and he had his chance to speak Burger intoned:
Here, as the nation joins Philadelphia in this celebration, we must remember that 200 years ago our people faced perils. A wilderness and great social and economic problems were there to conquer. Risks and challenges are present today. But, if we remain on course, keeping faith with the vision of the Founders, with freedom under ordered liberty, we will have done our part to see that the great new idea of government by consent—by We the People—remains in place.xxxiii
“Keeping faith with the vision of the Founders” had a special meaning for Chief Justice
Burger, but for some it represents a sort of nostalgic patriotism and filiopietism.
And Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall was quick to point this out in a speech
shortly after the Bicentennial Commission got down to work:
11
I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever “fixed” at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain a system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental today.
[The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787] could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendant of an American slave. “We the People” no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of “liberty,” “justice,” and “equality,” and who strived to better them.xxxiv
Marshall here says, what I believe, that what we should revere in this democratic nation
is not a document embodying the ideals of two centuries ago, but rather that greatest of
American intellectual and political contributions to the world – the idea of constitutionalism. Just as Bill Clinton argued in his Constitution Day proclamation in
1995, change is the friend, not the enemy, of constitutionalism. True constitutionalism, as
I have argued many times before, is the product of political struggle within particular societies, not a set of universal values or prescribable institutions.
But now I want to move beyond Byrd’s interpretation of the Constitution, and his
intentions for Constitution Day. I’d like to deal with the implications of Constitution Day
for the teaching of history, for Senator Byrd is not simply concerned with respect for the
Constitution. He is himself an historian, the author of a number of speeches on the
history of the United States Senate, later collected into four volumes, and a deep believer
that the nation’s future depends upon our success in educating youngsters about the
history of the country. To that end, he successfully introduced legislation in 2000 to
create what he called the “Teaching American History” initiative.xxxv His original 12
proposal was to appropriate $50 million annually in grants to schools that teach American
history as a separate subject within their curriculaxxxvi:
An American student, regardless of race, religion or gender, must know the history of the land to which [sic] they pledge allegiance. They should be taught about the Founding Fathers of this Nation, the battles that they fought, the ideals that they championed, and the enduring effects of their accomplishments. They should at be taught about our nation’s failures, our mistakes, and the inequities of our past. Without this knowledge, they cannot appreciate the hard won freedoms that are our birthright.xxxvii
A year later Byrd explained that he hoped the TAH initiative would provide
“incentives to help spur a return to the teaching of traditional American history… Our
failure to insist that the words and actions of our forefathers be handed down from
generation to generation will ultimately mean a failure to perpetuate this wonderful,
glorious experiment in representative democracy.”xxxviii
The core of Byrd’s intention is to return to what he thinks of as traditional
American history. “[W]e need good history books and good teachers so that the boys and
girls today will find their heroes among the early Americans who built this country.”xxxix
Good history is the story of Byrd’s childhood heroes. The problem for Byrd is not just that school children are not being taught enough American history, but that they are not being taught the right kind of history. And his initiative has flourished. In 2002 TAH was incorporated into the No Child Left Behind Act (as part of the Teacher Quality section of the Act)xl; even in tough budget times over the past five years it has
consistently been funded at more than $100 million dollars a yearxli – about two-thirds of
what the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the
Arts each receives annually. 13
Considering that in the entire history of the United States prior to 2000 there had
never been dedicated funding for the teaching of American history in the schools, this is a
staggering national investment in the field. How did it come about? I do not have time
today for details, but essentially this is the story of an idea that appealed to a great many
politicians for very different reasons – and of the clout an ancient, long-time member of
the Senate can willfully excercize. One set of reasons has to do with the so-called
“culture wars” of the late 1980s and early 1990s, in which political conservatives made much of the alleged ignorance of American schoolchildren as a potential cause of political decline. Another set had to do with the efforts of some university historians to try to reclaim the teaching of history from the dominant social studies curriculum in the public schools. Both sets were stimulated by the contentious survey conducted by Diane
Ravitch and Chester Finn, published in 1988 as What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?, with
a forward by NEH Chairman Lynne V. Cheney, who made historical “truth” one of her
mantras.xlii In short, the argument of Ravitch and Finn was that schoolchildren did not
know the facts of American history, a finding also confirmed in a survey report by the
American Council of Trustees and Alumni in 2000 entitled “Losing America’s Memory:
Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century.”xliii Like the Ravitch-Finn survey, the ACTA
report focused on ignorance of commonplace historical facts, reporting that 81% of those
surveyed “could not identify Valley Forge, passages from the Gettysburg Address, or the
principles of the U.S. Constitution.”xliv ACTA also reported that none of “the nation’s
top colleges and universities require students to study American history” (yes, that still
includes Old Nassau) and “only 10 per cent require students to study history at all” (not
us either).xlv 14
Congress itself jumped on the “historical ignorance” bandwagon, and in the
summer of 2000 Senator Joseph Lieberman (who along with Lynne Cheney had co-
founded ACTA) and others introduced a bipartisan resolution “Expressing the Sense of
Congress Regarding the Importance and Value of Education in United States History.”xlvi
The resolution decried “the historical illiteracy of America’s college and university graduates” and called upon higher education to respond by reviewing undergraduate curricula and promoting U.S. history requirements in order “to restore the vitality of
America’s civic memory.”xlvii (This passed the Senate by something like 90-0.)xlviii
Senator Lamar Alexander (occasionally in tandem with Senator Ted Kennedy) has also promoted the study of American history – in April, 2003, Alexander held a hearing on his
“American History and Civics Education Act”xlix – please note the connection between
history and civics. Alexander commented that “When we are asking our young men and
women to fight to defend our values, we need to do a better job of teaching just what
those values are.”l For Alexander and Lieberman, history is about teaching facts and
values, with the facts intended to support particular values, though the evidence they
produce of lack of historical knowledge is primarily about ignorance of specific
individuals (“heroes,” mostly), events (especially related to the Founding) and places
(related to both of the aforesaid). The Alexander bill, which first passed the Senate in
2003, proposes to create summer residential academies for public school American history teachers and students, modeled on the program that Alexander sponsored as
Governor of Tennessee.li Alexander intends that the program would “put the teaching of
American history and civics back in its rightful place in our schools, so that our children
can grow up learning what it means to be an American.”lii 15
Civics is being dropped from many school curricula. More than half the states have no requirement for a course in American government. And American history has been watered down, textbooks are dull, and their pages feature victims and diminish heroes. Because of politically correct attitudes from the left and right, teachers are afraid to teach the great controversies and struggles that are the essence of American history.liii
This, by the way, is a riff on the more famous statement of Yogi Berra that “if you don’t
know where you are going, you might not get there.” In 2005 Senators Alexander and
Kennedy introduced new legislation to improve American history and civics scores on
the National Assessment of Education Progress examination.liv As I will argue in conclusion, this is a normative and prescriptive view of the uses of history, and I think that both historians and political liberals ought to be wary of it. I could give you a great many more examples. The most important would be the controversy over the adoption of national standards for the teaching of American history, a dispute fomented by NEH
Chairman Cheney to great political effect. But I had better not go there . . .
I think many of you are familiar with that sorry episode, but you may be less
aware that NEH is still in the business of using American history for similar purposes,
and I think you ought to know what the current Chairman, Bruce Cole has been doing to
promote the American heritage. I have the comfort here in knowing that I am not the
only one to have noticed Cole’s appropriation of American history. In May of 2007
Judith Dobrzynski of the Wall Street Journal wrote an article on Cole entitled “This NEH
Chairman is Our Official History Scold.” lv Cole told the reporter than history was not
like other aspects of culture: “It’s essential.”lvi And he quoted Ronald Reagan as saying
that “this country comes from well-informed patriotism; it’s that love of country, that
love of place, that’s necessary for any country’s survival. You can call them myths if you
want, but unless we have them, we don’t have anything.”lvii Cole himself contended that 16
“History is a safeguard for our democracy. . . .It’s part of our national security.”lviii
Relevant to an American Studies lecture, the Chairman also opined that “. . . I do believe in American exceptionalism. . . . This is the greatest country that has ever existed.”lix
This from a distinguished historian of the art of the Italian Renaissance.
Under Cole’s leadership, and with the explicit endorsement of President George
W. Bush, the signature program of the NEH has become “We the People” (note the
Constitutional reference, please), “an initiative to explore significant events and themes in our nation’s history, and to share these lessons (note the word, please) with all
Americans.”lx At the Rose Garden ceremony at which the President announced the
program, Mr. Cole took the podium to comment that “Studies [he meant Ravitch-Finn and ACTA] have shown that Americans of all ages have a dangerously poor understanding [I hesitate to comment on the President’s more recent political use of history.] of American history and culture. . . . The President has identified this lack of understanding as a serious problem and has asked NEH to help combat (note the verb) it.”lxi We the People is designed (1) to call for applications for projects designed to
explore significant events and themes in our nation’s history, (2) to sponsor an annual
“Heroes of History” lecture by a scholar “on an individual whose heroism has helped to
protect (note the verb) America and (3) to sponsor an annual “Ideal of America” essay
contest for high school juniors.lxii
Cole concluded the announcement ceremony with a reference that must have
pleased the Chief Executive:
Last year’s September 11 terrorist attack was designed to destroy not only thousands of people but also the American way of life. In defending our homeland we must fight to protect the democratic ideals and principles of freedom on which our nation was founded.lxiii 17
And he pressed the national security rationale for the teaching of American history and
culture:
The humanities tell us who we are as a people and why our country is worth fighting for. They are integral to our homeland defense. People increasingly are forgetting what shaped their past and led to a national identity. When a nation fails to know why it exists and what it stands for, it cannot be expected to long endure.lxiv
And We the People continues to be the signature program of Cole’s NEH, although
compared to the sums allocated for Teaching American History, WTP is a financially
modest program. The Heroes of History lectures have thus far been given three times by
fairly distinguished figures, beginning with Robert Remini reflecting on “Ordinary
Heroes: Founders of Our Republic,” and by susequent lecturers extolling Abraham
Lincoln and George Marshall (“An American for all Seasons”).lxv The essay contest also
continues, with an assigned topic each year on “the principles that define and unite our nation.”lxvi In 2003 NEH also launched a WTP reading list on “Courage” with Cole and
Lynne Cheney (yes, she is still involved) announcing the establishment of a “We the
People Bookshelf” – “By reading these books, young readers can gain greater understanding of how people from all walks of life – facing challenges large and small – can find strength to do what is right.”lxvii It is also noteworthy that in September 2002
NEH announced that it would convene an annual conference on “civics education, the
state of historical knowledge and ways to enhance the teaching of American history,”
leading to a White House Forum on the subject in 2003.lxviii
In sum, since at least 2000 a variety of politicians from both parties have
proposed programs to reinvigorate the teaching of United States history and (closely linked to it in purpose) civics, on the theory that history education is a prerequisite for 18
democratic education. The George W. Bush NEH and the Department of Education have
administered such programs. Of course there is nothing wrong with striving to improve
the teaching of history and civics. But the agenda behind these particular programs is
ideological and didactic. It is premised on the notions that The Founders Knew Best and
that We Ought Still Be Governed by the Original Principles, and these are both historically and politically debatable at best and educationally pernicious at worst. Not just historians but all educators should resist the notion that students of all ages should be taught historical political mythology.
But this is not to argue that there is not a nexus between democracy and
education. Quite the contrary. My personal hero in this regard (alas, not a Founder, but
at least a Dead White Male), John Dewey, put it eloquently in 1916 (when our democracy
was anything but secure):
The devotion of democracy to education is a familiar fact. The superficial explanation is that a government resting upon popular suffrage cannot be successful unless those who elect and who obey their governors are educated. Since a democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority, it must find a substitute in voluntary disposition and interest; these can be created only by education. But there is a deeper explanation. A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience… A society which is mobile, which is full of channels for the distribution of a change occurring anywhere, must see to it that its members are educated to personal initiative and adaptability. Otherwise, they will be overwhelmed by the changes in which they are caught and whose significance or connections they do not perceive. The result will be a confusion in which a few will appropriate to themselves the results of the blind and externally directed activities of others.lxix
It seems to me that some such assumption should properly be the basis for liberal undergraduate education. We ought not to be about telling our students what is right
(though any teacher worth her salt will have strong views as to what is right and what is 19
wrong). The aim of liberal education is to challenge students to make their own informed
judgments. We, along with Dewey, want our students to be “educated to personal
initiative and adaptability.”lxx
More specifically for history teachers, the goal is not facticity (which might be
compared to constitutionism). The historian aims to train his students in historical
thinking – to be able to acquire the relevant data (facts among them) and then to be able
to make reasoned judgments and draw conclusions from them. This is the sort of
thinking that is not so easily assessed, unlike the simple-minded information survey that
led to the dismal conclusions of What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?lxxi or the even more
tawdry ACTA survey.lxxii It would be nice if all of my students knew what happened on
September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia, but it would be much nicer if they had an informed
interpretation of what the long-term significance of the signing of the federal constitution
might be.
My friend and History Department colleague Theodore Rabb put the point well in a June essay on history teaching in the schools in The Chronicle of Higher Educationlxxiii:
If we gave talented teachers of history their heads, they could convey the joys of this endlessly fascinating subject, with its heroes and villains, conflict and engagement, drama and discovery. Their students, in turn, could gain a sense of perspective about themselves and their world, and learn to analyze the news that surrounds them. Instead, we put the teaching of history into ever narrower straitjackets, and spin test results that demonstrate profound ignorance into symptoms of a brighter future.lxxiv
Exactly. History, especially U.S. history, also has a large role to play in our university
classrooms, in training students in historical thinking, and even in teaching them how
democracy works. But this is not in my view the special obligation of historians. Rather,
it is an integral part of liberal education. 20
And on this, Harry Lewis, the distinguished former dean at Harvard, wrote in the
Chronicle just two weeks ago that “colleges can’t say that civic ignorance is just the problem of high schools. Honoring the responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy is part of the moral obligation universities assume in exchange for the vast freedoms . . . they enjoy.”lxxv
I stoutly oppose federal interference in the content of college curricula. But institutions of higher education have a social contract with America, and we are not holding up our end of the deal. We owe it to the country to teach our students how democracy works. [and] More is at issue here than the dates in American history. Students need to develop a feeling for the preciousness of human freedom and self-determination, and the responsibility of citizens to act for the good of their country and not only in their personal self-interest. In college, they should learn how America’s foundational ideas, of liberty and equality under the law, apply to the difficult problems with which it is struggling today. They need to learn that as citizens we have no one but ourselves to blame for our elected officials and their actions.lxxvi
I think Lewis has it just right.
Put another way, what Lewis (and I) would advocate is not filiopietistic patriotism, of the NEH variety, nor even of Byrd’s, but rather constitutional patriotism, which is quite a different matter. As Jurgen Habermas has put it:
The political culture of a country crystallizes around its constitution. Each national culture develops a distinctive interpretation of those constitutional principles that are equally embodied in other republican constitutions— such as popular sovereignty and human rights—in light of its own national history. A “constitutional patriotism” based on these interpretations can take the place originally occupied by nationalism.lxxvii
Notice that Habermas asks us to locate where we are constitutionally in relation both to our own history and to the situation of other republican polities. This is a sensible and responsible use of constitutional history. It appeals to me, since I have devoted fifty 21 years of teaching to attempting something like what Habermas suggests. But, as you have heard, I am adamantly opposed to the calls for the normative teaching of history and the prescriptive use of education.
My challenge to you, in the exercise of Princeton University’s obligation to provide an “instructional program” for our students on this day, is simply to think about what the Constitution means today and has meant historically to this country. This is what my UCLA colleague Joyce Appleby did last week in an op ed entitled “Let’s Do
Something Constitutional on Constitution Day,”lxxviii urging the Congress to act on its constitutionally-mandated exclusive power to declare war. There’s a practical suggestion!
If you should happen to agree with me that some of those who have urged us to venerate the document and its early history are now undermining the vigor and integrity of our constitutional tradition, I would be delighted. If not, I would love to engage you on the topic.
Long live the Constitution of the United States. Long live the active and engaged teaching of U.S. history. And long live Senator Robert Byrd.
22
NOTES
The author wishes to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Maribel Morey of the History Department, Princeton University, in assisting with the research for this lecture. i The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands Advertisement, Constitution Day Made Easy, THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW, Sept. 2, 2007, at 23. ii Id. iii ECDET Appeals Judge’s Decision on Restrictions on Academic Travel to Cuba, PR NEWSWIRE-US NEWSWIRE, Aug. 9, 2007, available at http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,156790.shtml. iv WILLIAM HULL HOFER, TO ENLARGE THE MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT 9-20 (2007). v Id. at 95. vi Helene Cooper, As Her Star Wanes, Rice Tries to Reshape Legacy, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Sept. 1, 2007, at A6. vii Id. viii ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, THE IDEA THAT IS AMERICA 3-4 (2007). ix MAX FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 641 (1966). x Id. at 642. xi Id. at 643. xii Id. at 648. xiii Id. xiv Citizenship Day and New Citizens Day, Pub. L. No. 67-183 (1940). See also, Franklin L. Burdette, Education for Citizenship, 6 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY 269, 277 (1942). xv Glenn Kendall, Educational Activities of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 17 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL SOCIOLOGY 36, 41 (1943). xvi Marian Schibsby, Private Agencies Aiding the Foreign Born, 223 ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL SOCIAL SCIENCE 182, 187 (1942). In co-operation with civic, social, and educational agencies, the Federal Government’s Immigration and Naturalization Service for the last three years has been promoting ceremonies in honor of foreign-born persons who have become American citizens during the current year—the so-called “I Am An American Day” ceremonies. For the past year, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Work Projects Administration, working with state departments of education, have organized a nationwide program, the National Citizenship Education Program, for the education and assimilation of the foreign-born and especially of the four and a half million who are still aliens. NCEP classes have been set up in almost every state, and in some states the program is making excellent headway. Id.
23
xvii Ara Lovitt, Review: Constitutional Confusion? (Reviewed Work: Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution by Ronald Dworkin), 50 STAN. L. REV. 565, 602 (1998) (quoting from Learned Hand’s “The Spirit of Liberty,” speech at an “I Am an American Day” ceremony, Central Park, New York City, May 21, 1944, in LEARNED HAND, PAPERS AND ADDRESSES OF LEARNED HAND (ed. by Irving Dilliard 1952)). xviii Id. xix Citizenship Day and Constitution Week, Proclamation 6720, 30 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 1783 (Sept. 19, 1994). xx Omnibus Spending Bill of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-447; Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, 36 U.S.C. § 106, 108 (2004). xxi William J. Clinton, Proclamation 6825—Citizenship Day and Constitution Week, 1995, 31 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Sept. 25, 1995, at 1575. xxii Id. xxiii President Bush Proclaims Sept. 17 as Constitution Day, Citizenship Day, Sept. 17-23 as Constitution Week, U.S. FED NEWS SERVICE, Aug. 22, 2007. xxiv Id. xxv Senator Byrd’s Constitution Day Address, Sept. 16, 2005, available at http://www.byrdcenter.org/events_constday2005.html. xxvi Id. xxvii Id. xxviii Senator Byrd’s Constitution Day Address, Sept. 16, 2006, available at http://www.byrdcenter.org/events_constday2005.html. xxix Id. xxx Id. xxxi WALTER F. MURPHY, CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY: CREATING AND MAINTAINING A JUST POLITICAL ORDER (2006). xxxii William K. Stevens, The Constitution 1787-1987; Philadelphia Gears Up for Bicentennial Party, THE NEW YORK TIMES (Sept. 16, 1987). xxxiii Bicentennial Observance of the U.S. Constitution, HISTORIC DOCUMENTS OF 1987 (1988), available at http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/bicentennial_observance.html (last visited October 13, 2007). xxxiv Thurgood Marshall, Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 101 HARVARD L. REV. 1 (1987). xxxv Senator Byrd’s website links to description of Teaching American History, at http://byrd.senate.gov/hist_index.html (last visited October 13, 2007). xxxvi Id. 24
xxxvii Id. at http://byrd.senate.gov/hist_background/hist_background.html (last visited October 13, 2007). xxxviii Amendment to Teaching American History, Congressional Records § 4809 (May 10, 2001). xxxix Id. xl Alex Stein, The Teaching American History Program: An Introduction and Overview, 36 THE HISTORY TEACHER (2003). xli National Coalition for History, Teaching American History Grants Background, available at http://historycoalition.org/issues/teaching-american-history/ (last visited October 13, 2007). “For the past three fiscal years, approximately $120 million a year was appropriated to carry out the program.” Id. xlii DIANE RAVITCH AND CHESTER E. FINN, JR., WHAT DO OUR 17-YEAR-OLDS KNOW? A REPORT ON THE FIRST ASSESSMENT OF HISTORY AND LITERATURE viii (1987). xliii Anne D. Neal, et. al., Losing America’s Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century, Issued for Presidents’ Day, Feb. 21, 2000 (2000), available at www.goacta.org/publications/Reports/acta_american_memory.pdf (last visited October 13, 2007). xliv Robin Wilson, A Not-So-Professional Watchdog: Anne Neal has never worked at a college, but she has become a leading critic of left-wing faculty members, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION: THE FACULTY 1 (Nov. 10, 2006), available at http://chronicle.com (quoting Neal, supra note 43). xlv National Endowment for the Humanities, President Bush Announces NEH American History Initiative (Sept. 17, 2002), available at http://www.neh.gov/news/archive/20020917.html. xlvi Maris A. Vinovskis, No Child Left Behind and Highly Qualified U.S. History Teachers: Some Historical and Policy Perspectives 45-48 (draft, June 2007), prepared for Brown University Conference on “Clio at the Table: The Uses of History to Inform and Improve Education Policy,” June 14-15, 2007. xlvii Id. xlviii Id. xlix Senator Lamar Alexander’s website, Press Release: Senator Alexander Chairs Hearing on American History and Civics Act, April 10, 2003, available at http://alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=pressreleases.detail&pressrelease_id=163&month=4&y ear=2003. l Id. li Senator Lamar Alexander’s website, Press Release: Senator Alexander Applauds President Bush’s Emphasis on American History and Civics, May 1, 2003, available at http://alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=171&Month=5 &Year=2003. lii Senator Lamar Alexander’s website, Press Release: Senator Alexander’s American History and Civics Bill Passes Senate Unanimously, June 20, 2003, available at http://alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=211&Month=6 &Year=2003. liii Id.
25
liv Senator Lamar Alexander’s website, Press Release: Senator Alexander and Kennedy Introduce Legislation to Improve American History Scores and Civics: States Across the Country Will Be Able to Compare Test Scores, April 20, 2005, available at http://alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=707&Month=4 &Year=2005. lv Judith H. Dobrzynski, A Cultural Conversation with Bruce Cole: This NEH Chairman is Our Official History Scold, WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 2007, at D8. lvi Id. lvii Id. lviii Id. lix Id. lx National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] website, President Bush Announces NEH American History Initiative, Sept. 17, 2002, available at http://www.neh.gov/news/archive/20020917.html. lxi Id. lxii Id. lxiii Id. lxiv Id. lxv List of “Heroes of History” lecturers, available at http://www.wethepeople.gov/heroes/index.html (last visited October 13, 2007). lxvi National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] website, NEH Announces 11th-Grade Winners of ‘Idea of America’ Essay Contest: Laura Bush to recognize six young writers during White House ceremony, Feb. 16, 2003, available at http://www.neh.gov/news/archive/20030216.html. lxvii National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] website, NEH Launches We the People Reading List on “Courage”: Lynne Cheney and NEH Chairman Bruce Cole Announce New Book List for Young Readers; New NEH Program Will Provide Books to Libraries that Offer Public Programs, June 3, 2003, available at http://www.neh.gov/news/archive/20030603.html. lxviii National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH] website, President Bush Announces NEH American History Initiative, Sept. 17, 2002, available at http://www.neh.gov/news/archive/20020917.html. lxix JOHN DEWEY, DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION (quoting from Chapter Seven, “The Democratic Conception in Education,” Section Two, “The Democratic Ideal”) (1916), available at http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/dewey.html (last visited October 13, 2007). lxx Id. lxxi DIANE RAVITCH AND CHESTER E. FINN, JR., WHAT DO OUR 17-YEAR-OLDS KNOW?: A REPORT ON THE FIRST NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF HISTORY AND LITERATURE (1988). lxxii Anne D. Neal, et. al., Losing America’s Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century, Issued for Presidents’ Day, Feb. 21, 2000 (2000), available at www.goacta.org/publications/Reports/acta_american_memory.pdf (last visited October 13, 2007). 26
lxxiii Theodore K. Rabb, On the Contrary: Those Who Do Not Learn History, THE CHRONICLE REVIEW, June 22, 2007, at B2. lxxiv Id. lxxv Harry R. Lewis, Point of View: A Core Curriculum for Tomorrow’s Citizens, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, Sept. 7, 2007, at B20. lxxvi Id. lxxvii JURGEN HABERMAS, THE INCLUSION OF THE OTHER: STUDIES IN POLITICAL THEORY 118 (ED., CIARAN CRONIN AND PABLO DE GREIFF 1998). lxxviii Joyce Appleby, Let’s Do Something Constitutional on Constitution Day, HISTORY NEWS NETWORK, Sept. 10, 2007, at http://hnn.us/articles/42551.html (last visited October 13, 2007).